Fifth Circuit

In a multi-party appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed drug- and money-laundering-conspiracy convictions under domestic promotional laundering (but rejecting concealment-based laundering), finding error in a Rule 1006 summary spreadsheet, upholding a CCE conviction, and vacating a § 924(c) sentence for lack of a jury finding on a short-barreled rifle.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant for the defendant’s girlfriend’s home. The Court reasoned that the search warrant affidavit, which merely alleged that the defendant had brandished a gun at a Waffle House and was at his girlfriend’s apartment on another date, was “bare bones,” “rested on little more than conjecture,” and amounted to “a hunch dressed in paperwork.” Notably, the Court further held that the affidavit was so lacking in probable cause that the good faith exception did not apply.

The Fifth Circuit reversed a district court’s order suppressing statements a defendant made without Miranda warnings while the defendant was handcuffed and detained after a traffic stop. The Court reasoned that no reasonable person would believe they were in custody, since the defendant had indicated he knew he was being handcuffed and detained for “officer safety,” and thus would not have believed he was under arrest.

The Fifth Circuit vacated a district court’s denial of a defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from a traffic stop. The Court held that the district court erred in finding there had not been a “stop” since the officers’ flagging down the defendant’s car, ordering him out of the car, and demanding compliance with their commands established a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

Andres Manuel Alvarez was stopped by police because he matched the description of a “Hispanic male” who was in his general area and fleeing the service of an outstanding warrant on a “bicycle with large handlebars.” Though he was determined not to be the person they were looking for, Alvarez was found to have a […]

The Fifth Circuit affirmed a defendant’s sentence as a career offender based on his prior convictions. The defendant argued that his prior convictions did not count as “controlled substances” under the Guidelines since the Guidelines themselves do not include inchoate drug offenses like attempt and conspiracy–only the commentary to the Guidelines does. The Fifth Circuit deepened a circuit split by holding that the commentary are still binding on courts notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kisor v. Wilkie.

The Fifth Circuit reversed a defendant’s conviction after finding that the Government violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause when it presented testimonial hearsay from two non-testifying witnesses that alleged the defendant sold drugs. In doing so, the Fifth Circuit recounted its recent cases involving Confrontation Clause challenges and how the government “has repeatedly failed to take the lesson.”

The Fifth Circuit vacated a defendant’s sentence after holding that the district court improperly enhanced the sentence under 18 USC 3559(c). The Court concluded that the defendant’s prior convictions for aggravated assault under Texas law were not convictions for a “serious violent felony” under 3559(c) because a defendant need only act “recklessly” to be convicted.

The Fifth Circuit reversed a defendant’s conviction for carrying a firearm during a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime under 924(c). The trial court had erroneously instructedhe jury that it could find the defendants guilty of those charges if they used or carried a firearm in relation to either the “crime of violence” charged by their RICO conspiracy count or the drug trafficking crime charged, but RICO is not a “crime of violence” under Fifth Circuit precedent.

The Fifth Circuit reversed a defendant’s conviction for possession of a firearm by someone adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution. The trial court erroneously instructed the jury that it could find the defendant guilty based on finding he was either adjudicated a mental defective OR had previously been committed, though the indictment only alleged the former and not the latter.